Introduction

Translating The Fix from English to Greek was not an easy task since a translation by definition addresses an audience different from that of the original.

Certain adjustments were needed in order for the translated version to fit the expectations of the Greek audience with regard to what the target reader has been accustomed to reading about addiction and what the book promises to reveal. Any modifications made in the target version aim at fully reproducing the impact of the source text. The translator’s primary focus consisted in the conceptualization of the phenomenon of addiction in a manner similar to the one intended by the writer himself despite the assumed unfamiliarity of the Greek public with regard to behavioral readings of addiction-nurturing processes and habits. Giving prominence to the interaction between writer and readers was considered important due to the original text’s fluent, conversational character, and readable argumentation. This aim complies with the goal set by the author to communicate experiences from a casual but at the same time rather journalistic perspective motivated by his long presence in the field of media. “[A] ‘good’ journalist is, first and foremost, a good communicator of experiences” (Sparks 2000: 10). This strain of thought underlying the original should be equally reflected in the target text. The translator, therefore, has opted for an overall communicative, reader-centered model³ (Hatim & Mason 1993: 16-17) that is informed by three different approaches to linguistics and translation. These are:

a) Hatim and Mason’s (1993; 1997) approach to translation b) Fairclough’s (1995) model of Critical Discourse Analysis and c) Herman’s (1966) notion of Translator’s Voice.

3 According to Hatim and Mason (1993: 16-17), there are three types of translating that place emphasis on different aspects of meaning production and reception. These are: a) the author-centred translating, where primary emphasis is placed on authorial intentions; b) the text-centred translating, where the focus is placed on what the text says for itself as if it was an autonomous entity regardless of what the author possibly intends to say or what the readership may understand due to disparity in interests, background knowledge and expectations; and c) the reader-centred translating, where the translator’s priority lies in the variety of responses a text may trigger to a certain or different audience(s). These different approaches to translating illustrate the conflicting loyalties and challenges that translators are called to face every time they get into grips with a text.

Hatim & Mason’s (1993; 1997) approach to translation constitutes the cornerstone of our analysis and emphasizes the role of the translator as both a mediator and a communicator of experiences between different cultural as well as linguistic contexts. Throughout the act of reproducing a text’s message in the target language the translator is at pains to recreate meaning in a manner equivalent to that of the source that corresponds to authorial intentions as well as audience expectations.

Cooperative interaction constitutes a key notion with regard to Hatim and Mason’s approach. They read translational intervention as an act of mitigation that aims to harmonize differences and ensure the rhetorical development of a text beyond the confines of individual sentences, underscoring the importance of achieving equivalence of reader response. The context in which communication takes place is considered an indispensable part with regard to message transmission. That is the reason why the two theoreticians claim that the focus of the translator should lie in the process of negotiating contextual effects while considering the need to dissolve disparities and modify discourse to ensure effective interaction according to target language conventions.

Fairclough’s (1995) model of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) appropriately frames the overall communicative trajectory of the translational model proposed by further projecting the correspondence between the linguistic choices made and the effect achieved on the intended audience. More specifically, by focusing on media discourse, Fairclough aims at foregrounding the dialectical relationship existing between texts, on the one hand, and society, on the other. CDA constitutes a means of exploring the way language affects social practices and vice versa, thus, revealing the dynamic interplay instantiated between text producer(s) and the implied audience influencing both cognition of and interaction with a product.

Fairclough’s intention consists in foregrounding the crucial mediating role discourse plays for reconciling the gap between language and social context. Fairclough’s preoccupation with context and the media makes his socio-linguistic model the right means of framing our translational approach and complements Hatim and Mason’s theory in accordance with Thompson’s theme and goals underlying his tabloid logos.

Last but not least, Herman’s (1996) notion of the Translator’s Voice complements the communicative perspective adopted by justifying the deliberate silencing of the translator’s involvement in the act of message transmission on the

basis of the original’s casual, interactionist⁴ character and sense of proximity created between the author and his readers. It is the text-type of the source that requires immediacy and straightforwardness to be sustained in the target version at any expense, with the ulterior aim of maximizing the readability of the final product. By deliberately covering any traces of intervention, the translator manages to come up with an equally transparent and fluid text in Greek that conveys Thompson’s narrative on addiction in equally communicative to the original text terms. Herman’s approach to cross-cultural communication encourages the translator to accommodate different aspects of the text in the target language on the grounds of effective human interaction that favours continuity and facilitates comprehension.

What the translator has resorted to, therefore, is a polysystemic communicative model that draws upon different functional linguistic and translational theories that, nevertheless, have one thing in common; they place the translator at the centre of the act of message production and consumption and systematically focus on his/her mediating role in relation to the process of bridging the gap between different cultural and linguistic contexts. Construing the translational analysis of The Fix in this strand reflects the translator’s concern to produce a text that is equally communicative to Thompson’s work and effectively engages the Greek target reader to the tabloid rationale pervading the original. The analysis of the aforementioned theories is related throughout our exploration of specific instances drawn from Thompson’s text that are selected as indicative examples of the translator’s effort to render the true nature of the original in the target language. All in all, the second part of our study constitutes a thorough inspection of the translational and sociolinguistic theories employed in relation to their contribution to the overall act of translation.

4 Interactionism is a theoretical perspective that was first introduced and developed by the American sociologist George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). It studies how individuals shape society and vice versa through the meaning(s) arising and developing in interactions.